The fall of the Soviet empire produced an impetus towards the reunification of Germany after 40 years of division between East and West. In the letter that follows Trevor-Roper recounted his experiences as one of a group of academics invited to Chequers on March 24, 1990 to discuss with the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, problems that might be posed by a reunited Germany. 

To Max Perutz , 15 August 1990

The Old Rectory, Didcot

Dear Max

Many thanks for your article on Peter Medawar. I only met him once, but I had a great admiration for him, as a very distinguished scientist who (like you) could write for laymen (like me), and had wide humane interests and a clear English style! I thought he was splendid on that old humbug Teilhard de Chardin.

You ask me about the Prime Minister's now famous "seminar". What happened was this.

I was invited to lunch at Chequers on 24 March in order to discuss with the PM and others the problems created by a re-united Germany. I was not told who else had been invited. Before the meeting, I was sent a document — a sort of "discussion paper" — which made certain generalisations about the German character, in the form of questions. I thought them rather naïve. I feel reasonably sure that they represented the PM's views: they were not unlike those which re-surfaced later as those of Nicholas Ridley. 

When I arrived at Chequers I met the other participants. Apart from the PM, her private secretary Charles Powell, and Douglas Hurd, they were George Urban, Timothy Garton Ash, Norman Stone, Gordon Craig and Fritz Stern. After lunch we had a long discussion — it did not end till 6.30 — in the course of which it became clear that all the invited participants basically agreed that the presuppositions of the questionnaire-which was not explicitly mentioned-were wrong. The PM did not speak much: she acted as a chairman, and a very good chairman too. 

No document was shown to us afterwards, but it was noted that the PM, in her public utterances, was much less anti-German, and this — which culminated in her speech at Houston-was commonly seen as a result of our meeting (the fact-though not the content-of which had somehow got into the Press: it was published, with the names, in the Sunday Telegraph).

Then, on 15 July, the Independent on Sunday published, verbatim and in toto, the summary of our discussion which had been drawn up for the PM by Charles Powell. It took all of us by surprise. There was much telephoning that morning. Some wanted us to make a joint statement. Of course the Press and the television companies telephoned me, but I kept them at bay, and persuaded the English participants that we should neither appear on television nor write articles. My view was that our meeting had been confidential and remained confidential even if there had been an unauthorised leak. However, almost immediately after agreeing explicitly that he would not do so, Norman Stone appeared, that same day, both on BBC and on ITV television and wrote an article in The Times, which was published on the following day. I was rather annoyed about this, but not really surprised. 

Our objection to Charles Powell's summary was not that it misrepresented our views but that it put the main emphasis on the views put forward in the preliminary questionnaire as if we had advanced these views, whereas in fact we had not even mentioned them. They had been set out in Powell's questionnaire or discussion document but had in fact been tacitly ignored and implicitly rejected. But in his summary Powell brought them back and made them, retrospectively, the centre-piece of the discussion. So it looked as if we had taken them more seriously than we did, and had indeed ourselves advanced them. 

After it had blown over, I wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph expressing the views which I had in fact expressed at the meeting — and indeed a little earlier in a speech in the House of Lords. (I didn't intend to make a connexion with the seminar, but of course the Telegraph made it.) I enclose a copy of my article.

The question which remains is, who leaked the document? It seems that the Independent got it from Germany; and certainly the first details to be printed were published in the Rheinischer Merkur. Charles Powell says that the only copy of the document to be sent to Germany was sent to our ambassador there, Christopher Mallaby; so it looks as if there is a mole in his embassy.

As a final judgment, Tim Garton Ash wrote to me recently that "it seems to me that, in spite of all that we have said and written in different ways, it is now firmly established as historical fact that we participated, at Chequers, in March 1990, in an anti-German cabal".

[...] On August 24 we are going to Mexico. It has been uncertain for some time, since Xandra had an operation and then had to go back to a second hospital — with a virus (I think) contracted in the first. She is still rather lame. But the doctor says that she can go, and she is eager to go, so we are going: for a conference on — Eastern Europe!

yours ever

Hugh